Echoing media theme, Wash. Times' Lambro offers falsehood to support claim that Obama is making Dem "antiwar base very unhappy"
SUMMARY: Claiming that President-elect Barack Obama's "wiggle-room talk is making his party's hard-line, antiwar base very unhappy and there is growing anger in the leftist blogosphere," The Washington Times' Donald Lambro falsely suggested that Obama has only recently proposed a "residual force" of U.S. troops in Iraq, claiming that Obama "now says the U.S. will have 'to maintain a residual force to provide potential training for the Iraqi military, logistical support to protect our civilians in Iraq' " [emphasis added]. In fact, Obama talked throughout the presidential campaign about the likely need for such a force to remain in Iraq.
Amid considerable media discussion of President-elect Barack Obama's plans for the withdrawal of combat troops from Iraq -- The New York Times, for example, published an article on December 4 with the headline "Campaign Promises on Ending the War in Iraq Now Muted by Reality" -- Washington Times chief political correspondent Donald Lambro falsely suggested that Obama has reversed himself on the need for residual forces in Iraq. In his December 4 column, Lambro wrote that Obama's "wiggle-room talk is making his party's hard-line, antiwar base very unhappy and there is growing anger in the leftist blogosphere." As evidence to support his characterization of "wiggle-room talk," Lambro wrote that Obama "now says the U.S. will have 'to maintain a residual force to provide potential training for the Iraqi military, logistical support to protect our civilians in Iraq' " [emphasis added]. In fact, contrary to Lambro's suggestion that Obama only "now" supports a residual force, Obama talked throughout the presidential campaign about the likely need for such a force to remain in Iraq.
In a September 12, 2007, campaign speech in Clinton, Iowa, Obama said that after a withdrawal from Iraq, the United States "will need to retain some forces in Iraq and the region. We'll continue to strike at al Qaeda in Iraq. We'll protect our forces as they leave, and we will continue to protect U.S. diplomats and facilities. If -- but only if -- Iraq makes political progress and their security forces are not sectarian, we should continue to train and equip those forces." Additionally, Obama's campaign website states: "Under the Obama-Biden plan, a residual force will remain in Iraq and in the region to conduct targeted counter-terrorism missions against al Qaeda in Iraq and to protect American diplomatic and civilian personnel." According to the Internet Archive, a similar statement was on Obama's website in October 2007. Also, as Media Matters for America has previously noted, in January 2007, Obama introduced legislation that provided for U.S. forces to remain in Iraq after combat troop withdrawal was completed "[t]o protect United States personnel and facilities in Iraq" and "[t]o provide training for Iraqi security forces."
From Lambro's December 4 Washington Times column:
Defense Secretary Robert Gates' decision to remain in his job presented different challenges. He had been the chief proponent of President Bush's surge that rescued the Iraq war from certain defeat and gave the Iraqis time to train their military. He opposed Mr. Obama's troop withdrawal timetable and said so publicly and still believes the Iraqis need more time before they can go it alone.
Mr. Obama gave him assurances that as the lone Republican on the team he would be in on all national security decision-making and the future of the Iraq war. At the same time, Mr. Obama assured Mr. Gates that his own 16-month pullout timeline was not set in concrete, that the United States would not leave the Iraqis high and dry and that he was willing to seek a compromise on any future withdrawal.
He acknowledged Monday that the policy terrain regarding the length of time that combat troops would remain in Iraq had already changed as a result of the Bush administration's security agreement with Iraq that called for U.S. troop withdrawal in three years.
There is a lot of room for compromise between 36 months and 16 months, and Mr. Obama was sending signals this week that he was prepared to leave U.S. troops in Iraq longer than he envisions if his military commanders say they need more time to secure the country.
Thus, the man who made pulling out of the Iraq war his No. 1 foreign policy campaign issue now says the U.S. will have "to maintain a residual force to provide potential training for the Iraqi military, logistical support to protect our civilians in Iraq." That was the behind-the-scenes advice his Iraq war advisers gave him early this year and apparently he is taking it.
Notably, Mr. Obama now says his "No. 1 priority is making sure that our troops remain safe in this transition phase and that the Iraqi people are well- served by a government that is taking on increased responsibility for its own security."
"I will listen to the recommendation of my commanders," he reaffirmed Monday.
Not surprisingly, all of his wiggle-room talk is making his party's hard-line, antiwar base very unhappy and there is growing anger in the leftist blogosphere. It is suddenly dawning on them that we are going to be in Iraq a little longer than they had been led to believe.
I'm not anti-war. A combination of why we went to war in Iraq, the toll in lives and treasure on both sides, and the likelihood of a positive long-term outcome for US interests is what gives us pause. Heck, after 9/11 I was ready to join up to go kill Bin Laden but found out I was slightly too old.
Pacifism is both an unrealistic and rare stance in America today. However, the bar you must clear to convince liberals to go to war is much higher. You could say we are the only ones keeping the war mongers in Washington in check.
Which of the following Senators voted against the Authorization?
Hillary Clinton?
John Kerry?
Joe Biden?
John Edwards?
Harry Reid?
Good ol Obama fooled the rest by stating he would have voted against it. Seeing as how he never voted against the leadership, that propositon, while extremely doubtful, gave BHO the nomination. The economic crisis and eight years of Bush gave Obama the election.
Obama is very smooth. He campaigned on getting the troops out while every once in a while stating he might keep a residual force.... He upped the flipflop by the illustrious "liberal" Senators I mentioned above by holding both postions simultaneously. Gotta give him credit for that.
Be that as it may, the idea that the liberals keep the "war mongers" in check is laughable. The only thing they check, is which way is the wind blowing.
"Which of the following Senators voted against the Authorization?" None you mentioned. And your point is?
"Good ol Obama fooled the rest by stating he would have voted against it." You know he fooled the rest, how? Since he was in IL, he could not really vote and he said if he could, he would vote against it. Second sentence of this para makes no sense.
"He upped the flipflop by the illustrious "liberal" Senators I mentioned above by holding both postions simultaneously" Now, this is what is really laughable about your post.
Which President ignored the terms of the Authorization and went to war anyway?
"Seeing as how he never voted against the leadership, that propositon, while extremely doubtful, gave BHO the nomination."
That's the sole reason he got the nomination? Is there some obscure poll results that you're looking at? Or are you pulling public opinion out of your backside?
Your point is what exactly?
Edwards, said he was wrong about his vote.
Clinton said she would still vote the same way, if the same information was presented in the same light as it was when they were voting on it, ie, the President used the information that he wanted.
Biden? Don't know much about his vote.
Reid? Don't know much about his vote either.
You're trying to say that these folks are super liberals, but voted for use of force at the same time? That's called talking out both sides of your mouth at the same time.
One of the things that Obama campaigned on was ending the war in Iraq. I believe his timetable stated 16 months, which is matching up with what the Iraqi's want. He said, he wanted to end it, but that a residual force might be required. This is and was his position from the start of things. There was NO flip flopping of course, but you'll believe that you can't hold 2 positions at the same time, ie, saying he wants to end the war, but depending on what might be happening at that point in time, he might have to stay longer than he'd like.
It doesn't matter how Obama got the nomination, or the election, what matters now is that he won. It's what he does with it that will show us what he's made out of.
Never voted against what leadership? The dem leadership? You know why right? Because, he's a democrat, and the agenda they were trying to enact was the agenda that he most believed in, because, once again, he's a democrat. McCain voted with the President 90+% of the time since 2001. Why is that a big deal? Because he tried to convince the American people that he was a rebel, a Maverick. Obama never made such claims.
The Democrats in the Senate that voted for that resolution are cowards and get no respect from me. It was obvious at the time that they were afraid to go against Bush post-9/11 on national security matters.
When I said that liberals keep war mongers in check, I was referring to liberals in general, not just politicians. If it weren't for liberals, we'd be in Iran right now.
Call me naive, but I think pacifism is not only possible on a large scale but I think it is preferable. I can't prove it and I can't convice you of it, but I do want to offer up an example. Barack Obama likes to quote Ghandi when he says "Be the change you want to be in the world." I wish Obama and more Americans would instead use his example as a template for how to treat the rest of the world. Ghandi also said
Also, for you Christians out there (and I am one of them) I believe Jesus had a few things to say about "loving your enemies," "praying for those who persecute you," and "turning the other cheek."
Pacifism only works if practiced on both sides. Since it's in human nature to conquer and seek power, this will likely never happen. No matter how peace-loving, a nation will always have to be prepared to go to war when the other side has no such peaceful intentions, which in this world is very often.
It's not how I'd want the world to work, it just is.
The only people I've seen whining about Barack Obama are the righty tighty's who are disappointed that we love this guy! Still! Hey, it's not our fault y'all picked a has been and a wind tunnel to represent your party values. You lost, get over it.
We love Barack!
There will be a handful that will be P.O.ed if troops are not walking off a ship back onto US soil by the end of January. But, I think, they will be numbered in the 100s and not the 1,000,000s.
Plus, those folks likely voted for Nader anwyay.
Or Cynthia McKinney.
That really worked out well, didn't it?
Yup. How many electoral votes did they get between them (Nader and McKinney)?
During the campaign the right wing was so busy making up crap about Barack Obama that they completely lost track of what he was actually saying. And now they can't admit that he's not the flaming cartoon radical that they depicted him as.
Irony,
He hasn't taken office yet. Lets hope he's not.
You CAN hope. Rational people KNOW he is not.
Whic members of the Democratic "Antiwar Base" has Lambro actually talked to? There's a lot of wishful thinking on the Republican side. Maybe if Lambro and his colleagues at Faux News clicked their heels and wished hard it might be so.......
Are conservatives "pro-war"?
Are they "pro-war" in the same way that they falsely accuse liberals of being "pro-abortion"?
Not at all, Pete. I think most who are pro-choice take every precaution possible to avoid abortions,while conservatives prefer war as Plan A over other available options.
Isn't "anti-war" a "pro-life" position?
Yes, yes it is.
Thing is, the only "conservative" group that I see out there who is consistently pro life (no war, no death penalty, no abortions, no assisted suicides, no pulling the plug, etc. etc..) are, wait for it, the Catholic Church.
Don't forget about the catholic church's history of aiding and abetting the pursuits of pedophiles as well. And although many catholics are against abortion, I wouldn't be so quick to call the rank-and-file papist a "conservative." Just about every catholic who I went to school and grew up with came from families of democrats . ..
OT, but here's O'reilly talking about giving up his radio show:
"Radio is more intimate," he said. "TV has more power, because of the images, but you can say things on radio you wouldn't say on TV. It's less formal.
"The one thing I found about radio listeners is you can't talk down to them. You have to respect them."
Never mind that he prescreens his audience, but you just heard his goal is to disrespect his audience.
O'Reilly's not smart enough to talk down to anyone. He has to talk up to dirt.
And lying through his teeth to his radio audience on a daily basis shows them no respect at all.